Kerry to Call for IMPEACHMENT

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

Joe,

Are trying to find insult or something? If you are desirous of putting that shoe on your foot, don’t let me stop you.

–

Veg,

I don’t know what you think we are discussing in this thread…

Pardon me?

Here, we we actually appear to have is a memo that carries a significant implication. I haven’t seen anyone in this thread mention any statements made by Tony Blair.

I mean, if there is a memo, which suggests a meeting occurred between high level officials, where it was understood that based on obvious international discussions, that the administration was cherry picking evidence, should it be thrown out instead of investigated?

I mean, we all know that Clinton getting blowjobs damn near spelled the end of the world, its a good thing something major like that was investigated. We’d hate to waste resources seeing if the commander in chief of the US military cherry picked intelligence to justify a war costing billions of dollars and thousands of lives.

No, that wouldn’t be worth taking a second glance at in any shape or form. With comments like that which you have just made, showing a decided lack of understanding of the issue under consideration, you have the gall to ask me why I ask questions?

I’m not saying he did mind you. I know it is hard to imagine someone asking a question without assuming they already think they know the answer, but sometimes, it does happen.

So, to be fair, next time someone who leads your nation to war were to be implicated in something like this, I’d probably ask questions whether they were democrat or republican. Is that so hard to imagine?

By the way, you’ve been picked on about the bong concept for a long time. I didn’t start it and I don’t know who did. If you are seriously offended, let me know (PM perhaps), and I’ll search for some other way to piss you off instead.

142

[quote]pbc wrote:
I?m so fucking sick of this republican and democrat bullshit. If bush fucked up he deserves to be punished. When no weapons were found in Iraq he just put the blame on the intelligence he received. Bush is the leader of the whole fucking free world and he cant even get his intelligence straight. Democrats and republicans are going to fight about whether this document is legit, but the evidence is right before our fucking eyes. For once I would like congress to agree on an issue because it is good for Americans.

Clinton was impeached because he lied about a BJ he got from some fat bitch, nobody was harmed though. Bush lied (although nobody will ever admit it) and many soldiers died. Simply stated there is NO concrete evidence why we should be in Iraq. If bush is such a good leader then he should take responsibility for his mistakes and make this situation better, otherwise impeach the Motherfucker.[/quote]

All politics aside, this was not a good “second” post for you on T-Nation. If you want to get into “why” I suggest that you PM me, I would like to help you out.

Your friend,

Zeb

143

elk wrote:

“I am being completely serious (not sarcastic) when I say, I have never seen anyone display the zealotry you do for this administration other then a Taliban, or an SS officer would to their respective masters. Again, in all seriousness I say this.”

It strikes me as funny that someone who candidly admits that their candidates are shitty, yet votes for them consistently, would make this sort of commentary.

You remind me of a group of adolescent, glassy-eyed clowns. Instead of reforming yourselves, you piss and moan, stamp your feet, and vomit up silly little slogans.

The majority of the country is unwilling to entrust you clowns with the dangerous post-9/11 world.

You can either start getting the message, or stay in the wilderness. It’s your call.

Have a wonderful second term!!!

JeffR

144

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I think you are all missing the fact that the story that Kerry is going to call for impeachment is utter horseshit.

When did you guys start believing aljazeera?[/quote]

Certainly this sounds like so much smoke being blown around. However, what I think that those on the far left in this case (and other times on the far right) have to realize is that not everything needs to be investigated.

Sometimes there are nut jobs running around with conspiaracy theories which really don’t need any time or attention from the United States Government.

This also goes for those on the far right who hated William Jefferson Clinton. Remember all the stories about how he was supposedly tied into some drug running band of desparados out of Arkansas? Also, he was supposed to be a rapist…okay…well he wasn’t a drug runner at least :slight_smile:

No, really sometimes those on the far ends the political spectrum have to take a step back and say “I know I hate this guy, but even that sounds stupid.”

It’s obviously not just on this forum. Everyone who “hates” the President (whoever he is at the time) always attributes the worst possible motives to everything that the man might do.

Bush haters, it’s your turn to take a step back and breath…in…out…Relax it will all be over in 3 1/2 years.

:slight_smile:

145

[quote]vroom wrote:
Joe,

Are trying to find insult or something? If you are desirous of putting that shoe on your foot, don’t let me stop you.

–

Veg,

I don’t know what you think we are discussing in this thread…

Dude, people came foward WRT Clinton getting blowjobs. Obviously that is investigateable. This isn’t the case at all, this is a statement that tony blair made that is being spun out of context for political purposes.

Pardon me?

Here, we we actually appear to have is a memo that carries a significant implication. I haven’t seen anyone in this thread mention any statements made by Tony Blair.

I mean, if there is a memo, which suggests a meeting occurred between high level officials, where it was understood that based on obvious international discussions, that the administration was cherry picking evidence, should it be thrown out instead of investigated?

I mean, we all know that Clinton getting blowjobs damn near spelled the end of the world, its a good thing something major like that was investigated. We’d hate to waste resources seeing if the commander in chief of the US military cherry picked intelligence to justify a war costing billions of dollars and thousands of lives.

No, that wouldn’t be worth taking a second glance at in any shape or form. With comments like that which you have just made, showing a decided lack of understanding of the issue under consideration, you have the gall to ask me why I ask questions?

I’m not saying he did mind you. I know it is hard to imagine someone asking a question without assuming they already think they know the answer, but sometimes, it does happen.

So, to be fair, next time someone who leads your nation to war were to be implicated in something like this, I’d probably ask questions whether they were democrat or republican. Is that so hard to imagine?

By the way, you’ve been picked on about the bong concept for a long time. I didn’t start it and I don’t know who did. If you are seriously offended, let me know (PM perhaps), and I’ll search for some other way to piss you off instead.[/quote]

You really are insane, here is the very first post by JTF on this thread that started this thread that this thread was about.

“John Kerry announced Thursday that he intends to present Congress with The Downing Street Memo, reported last month by the London Times. The memo purports to include minutes from a July 2002 meeting with Tony Blair, in which Blair allegedly said that President Bush’s administration “fixed” intelligence on Iraq in order to justify the Iraqi war.”

Now who is insane here me or you? We both can’t be thinking clearly, yet you say you read the memo and has nothing to do with anything Blair said? You might want to re-read or simply read the memo or tell JTF to get his story straight and stop posting lies about what blair said or did not say. Somehow, I feel that Elkhunter will come to your rescue once again, and call me a retarded bongsmoker to discredit this proof to you.

The argument is this, Blair said the bush admin “fixed” intelligence on iraq, in british speak this is commonly used as affixed is here. Frothy libs are running with this as if it literally meant in US speak “fixed” all blair has to do is say, of course I maent Affixed, and the story is over. what other possible investigation can go on when the entire premise is based upon what one man said and was mischaracterised as saying.

Tell me again that I have no idea what we are discussing, come on I know ya can.

V

146

Stunned, like a duck hit in the head… that made me chuckle. To you bullshit, to me truth, it’s not gonna change jerffy, those are my firmly placed beliefs. I am too intelligent to believe what I believe. I think the same could be said of you and your beliefs.

I don’t believe you are a cop. I do wonder where you are coming from and I think there is more then meets the eye with you.

147

[quote]JeffR wrote:
elk wrote:

“I am being completely serious (not sarcastic) when I say, I have never seen anyone display the zealotry you do for this administration other then a Taliban, or an SS officer would to their respective masters. Again, in all seriousness I say this.”

It strikes me as funny that someone who candidly admits that their candidates are shitty, yet votes for them consistently, would make this sort of commentary.

You remind me of a group of adolescent, glassy-eyed clowns. Instead of reforming yourselves, you piss and moan, stamp your feet, and vomit up silly little slogans.

The majority of the country is unwilling to entrust you clowns with the dangerous post-9/11 world.

You can either start getting the message, or stay in the wilderness. It’s your call.

Have a wonderful second term!!!

JeffR[/quote]

People with the mind set of you and vegita… The wilderness doesn’t seem like a bad place to be!

148

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Snoop wrote:

“Where did I say that I wanted to go to war to free all the people in the world from tyranny? I said that it is a by-product of the war. I also stated that it was not the reason that we went to war. The reason given to us was WMD.”

Good God!!!

There it is again.

Snoop I order you over to the new thread that I started Today entitled, “War aims in Iraq.”

Read it!!!

Then stop saying WMD was the only reason!!!

JeffR

[/quote]

Like I stated in the post previous to that one; there were many reasons that we went to war, however the “Big Ticket” reason was possession of WMD’s, now I can get behind that as a reason to take someone like Sadaam out of power. I can also understand faulty intel, or the fact that there was advanced warning of invasion and most if not all weapons were destroyed or shipped out of country. I could also see the possibility that GW or some others telling tall tales of WMD’s.

If Bush lied then he should get slammed; if he didn’t then people should shut the hell up about WMDs! Whatever the case may be the important thing is to realize the possible positives to come out of this action.

149

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I think you are all missing the fact that the story that Kerry is going to call for impeachment is utter horseshit.

When did you guys start believing aljazeera?[/quote]

Zap

Go back to my first post on the first page of this thread.

That started a 3 page blow out between my newest discussion buddy vroom and myself. i discounted the story and the publication it ran in.

vroom–not a personal bash so let’s stay on each others good side–you got veg in your mirror now anyways.

150

nice Veg.
Make sure to replace your divots, bro!

151

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Joe Weider wrote:
“don’t forget that Bush is not the only one to say “WMD”. The UN did, Clinton did, every “D” Senator who’s now attacking Bush for it signed onto it…”

Joe, one of the tactics used by the looney left is to assert that W. somehow had “extra intelligence” that the dem leadership did not have.

When reading the previous dem quotes on this thread, you can see clearly that many dem comments were made prior to W. taking office.

In order for the above argument to indict W., the dems would have to assert that clinton’s and his top advisors also didn’t have the “extra intelligence” when they made their assertions of the obvious.

It all boils down to this: The dems believed the exact same thing as W. Most voted to authorize military action. They lost the election in every conceivable way. Now they are throwing very clumsy haymakers.

Their silly little games make them look very amateurish.

JeffR

[/quote]

Silly is the game you play that ignores that liberals did not take us to war based on trumped up evidence. Again when did Clinton invade Disneyland? OOPS I mean Iraq? Oh I remember, he didn’t. It’s ok to admit you were duped JeffR, alot of us were duped—myself by Colin Powell—but was I privy to the disclaimers given to Powell before presenting his declarative statements on biological mobible labs—NOPE!—see the difference? Me and Powell thought the same thing—however I had no idea that his intelligence was not sound, because he never mentioned that, he just said “these are facts”! Why not just say assertions?

152

lumpy wrote:

“Silly is the game you play that ignores that liberals did not take us to war based on trumped up evidence.”

Trumped up? Did you read the list of quotes from your party. I’ll be happy to repost if you want.

“Again when did Clinton invade Disneyland? OOPS I mean Iraq?
Oh I remember, he didn’t.”

Your damn right he didn’t. That’s why his legacy will equal not putting together the pieces: World Trade Center 1, African bombings, Cole, etc…
You remember james buchanan? That’s billyboy.

“It’s ok to admit you were duped JeffR, alot of us were duped”

Duped? I’m not going to type all the things that the Administration had right going in.

“—myself by Colin Powell—but was I privy to the disclaimers given to Powell before presenting his declarative statements on biological mobible labs—NOPE!—see the difference? Me and Powell thought the same thing—however I had no idea that his intelligence was not sound, because he never mentioned that, he just said “these are facts”! Why not just say assertions?”

Oh, I see. Please read the statements from your party. I don’t remember any “assertions” being made.

Cool how they had the same intel.

Here comes lumpy the hypocrite to save the day!!!

JeffR

153

Joe,

Would it be possible for you to stop being so childish sitting on the sidelines like that?

–

Veg,

The following…

came from Al-Jazeera, I believe, unless it was JTF paraphrasing it.

I don’t give any credence to anything that Al-Jazeera reports. If you had noticed the day full of bickering between Sasquatch and I, you would notice that we had limited ourselves to the memo itself.

Given this, I think perhaps you may be able to forgive me for thinking we were talking about the contents of a memo, not what Al-Jazeera made up for us based on it?

Oh wait, let me reuse a statement given to me a few times, did you actually read the memo itself?

The memo wasn’t very clear, to me at least, about who was speaking to whom at what time. I didn’t assume it was actually “quoting” Tony Blair. Hell, if it was, that would be quite a strong implication if it were accurate, wouldn’t it?

I mean, if anyone in Britain had access to all the facts, it would probably be Tony Blair.

154

There’s no anger here Jeff, I don’t get worked up about things to that extent. Just a kind of sadness and disappointment with the ignorance and stupidity of America.

I get plenty of sex, buddy. They don’t call Japan ‘the white man’s paradise’ for nothing.

155

[quote]JeffR wrote:
lumpy wrote:

“Silly is the game you play that ignores that liberals did not take us to war based on trumped up evidence.”

Trumped up? Did you read the list of quotes from your party. I’ll be happy to repost if you want.
[/quote]
Trumped up. “These are facts” Thats trumping up the intel don’t ya think? My party didn’t mislead—your’s did, and your list only confirmed it.(You really should stop proving yourself wrong all the time. The presidents speech in the other post, Detroit=Iraq, Duelfer Report=WMD, What’s next blaming Clinton for 9/11?

Too. Funny. Obviously that’s been debunked utterly and completely, and hilariously Bush informed of everything you mentioned decided to demote terrorism as a priority, stop flying armed predator drones over afghanistan all the better to focus on our real concern—missle defence system—Oh Jeff—is it willful ignorance? My goodness!

Uhh actually they were dead wrong on WMD,Al queda, The flowers and chocalates, the troops needed, and reconstruction costs, the strength of the insurgency, the turning of the corners, pretty much all that mattered–all to establish most likely a pro-iranian govt. Yippee. Other than that, they were right about everything.

I still don’t remember my party saying we have to go to war, because these are facts, there is no doubt…remind me when my party said it’s time to go to war? Because all I remember was a no fly-zone that basically, lets see according to the DUELFER REPORT–left Saddam with ZERO WMD! at the cost of how many lives and wounded?

Hmm…seems like it was much less. Also compare Bush’s current cabinet encouraging Clinton to do regime change—Note: HE DIDN’T.

It’s ok jeff your still dead wrong. It’s called cognitive dissonance. You can fix it, but you’ll have to stop reading whacky GOP detroit=iraq emails.

Hey! cooler how the responses were so different to that intel! Hilarious.(THE WHOLE POINT—thanks Jeff)

Well you can make Iraq seem like disneyland, you should be hired by the bushies to save the day! Go Jeff!

156

[quote]deanosumo wrote:
There’s no anger here Jeff, I don’t get worked up about things to that extent. Just a kind of sadness and disappointment with the ignorance and stupidity of America.

I get plenty of sex, buddy. They don’t call Japan ‘the white man’s paradise’ for nothing.

[/quote]

they do?
I’ve never heard that.
I thought you had a serious lady though???
(that’s not to say you can’t have plenty of sex with a steady girl…LOL!)

157

In case you still haven’t read it vroom…

“C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime’s record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.”

We can assume C is Tony Blair since diplomats and other don’t talk to bush, only blair does.

Bush wanted to go to war … BUT the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.

This doesn’t even make sense in the sense that Bush was Fixing the intelligence.

It is not hard to follow at all, unless of course you choose to ignore basic sentence structure and reason.

Bush wanted to go in, but needed to wait untill the intel and facts were organized around the policy… is that better?

V

158

Unfortunately I haven’t had much time to participate in this thread but I’ve read most of the posts.

Firstly, it’s laughable that some are dismissing the story out-of-hand just because it appears in AlJazeera.

I forgot, “Rummy” said not to listen to them – one of the guys who said:

  • there were DEFINITELY WMD’s
  • there was a link between al Qaeda and Saddam
  • the war would only cost around $60 billion
  • it would only last 6 months
  • we would be greeted as liberators
  • fabricated the Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch stories

[quote]
JeffR wrote:
Duped? I’m not going to type all the things that the Administration had right going in. [/quote]
How long does it take for you to type, N-O-T-H-I-N-G?

Shortly after the September 11 attacks on Wall Street and Washington, the Pentagon gave Rendon a $100,000-a-month contract to track anti-U.S. foreign news reports, offer advice on media strategy and plant pro-U.S. stories in web, print and television. In 2002 when the Pentagon tried to create the “Office of Strategic Influence” to spread misleading stories in foreign countries, Rendon was the contractor they had in mind.
http://corpwatch.org/article.php?id=11486

Bush’s News War
Fed up with the gloom-and-doom coverage of the conflict, the White House is taking aim at the press

Or as Col. David. H. Hackworth (1930-2005) put it:
"Why does the Pentagon lie so blatantly? It’s the ingrained nature of a beast with a $400 billion annual habit to protect. It must always put its shiniest boot forward to protect its agenda, and the truth be damned.

As with Tillman, Lynch, the recruiting shortfall and now SecDef Rummy’s slick mumbo jumbo about the lack of armor in Iraq, the truth always comes out."

Hackworth was put in for the Medal of Honor three times; the last application is currently under review at the Pentagon. He was twice awarded the Army’s second highest honor for valor, the Distinguished Service Cross, along with 10 Silver Stars and eight Bronze Stars

Yeah. Watch out for AlJazeera…

Anyway, here is another source.
RAW STORY has confirmed that Kerry intends to deliver a statement on the Downing Street minutes.
http://tinyurl.com/dcnfp

Secondly, the Dems have NO CHOICE but to pursue this issue. The public is putting tremendous pressure on them to take action so they CAN’T ignore it. I’m not hanging my hopes on the Dems, BTW - the public have to be the one’s pushing the issue now, the Dems wouldn’t be doing shit otherwise.

Regardless, the “fix” was in - the memo just ties it all together.

Inspectors Call U.S. Tips ‘Garbage’ (before the start of the war - can’t claim “bad intelligence”)
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/18/iraq/main537096.shtml

Prewar Findings Worried Analysts
A close reading of the recent 600-page report by the president’s commission on intelligence, and the previous report by the Senate panel, shows that as war approached, many U.S. intelligence analysts were internally questioning almost every major piece of prewar intelligence about Hussein’s alleged weapons programs.

Panel: U.S. Ignored Work of U.N. Arms Inspectors
By the time President Bush ordered U.S. troops to disarm Saddam Hussein of the deadly weapons he was allegedly trying to build, every piece of fresh evidence had been tested – and disproved – by U.N. inspectors, according to a report commissioned by the president and released Thursday.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21854-2005Apr2.html

On 22nd August, 1939, Hitler again addressed members of the High Command, telling them when the start of military operations would be ordered. He disclosed that for propaganda purposes, he would provocate a good reason. “It will make no difference,” he announced, “whether this reason will sound convincing or not. After all, the victor will not be asked whether he talked the truth or not. We have to proceed brutally. The stronger is always right.”
Nuremburg Trials - November 21, 1945

159

Aw, now I’m sad Veg. I wanted to be the Perry Mason guy investigating things.

However, to me, C could be anyone who went to Washington, perhaps having discussions with someone other than Bush, who reported on the substance of the message, rather than talking directly to Bush.

I’m glad you know how the international communications between the US and UK are handled in detail, that makes me feel a lot safer at night.

160

JTF, wasn’t monday yesteday?